Senator Chuck Grassley, a veteran Republican from Iowa, has long been a vocal advocate for reasserting Congress’s constitutional authority over trade and tariffs, a role he believes has been overly delegated to the executive branch. As President Donald Trump rolled out sweeping new tariffs in 2025, Grassley finds himself in a delicate position—supporting the president’s broader goals while urging a structural shift to ensure Congress has the final say. This stance reflects both his commitment to legislative oversight and his hope that Trump’s aggressive trade policies can serve as a negotiating tool to lower tariffs globally, particularly for the benefit of America’s agricultural community. However, the risks of this strategy backfiring have many farmers, especially in Grassley’s home state, on edge.
Why Grassley Wants Congress in Charge
Grassley’s push to reclaim Congressional authority stems from a belief that trade policy has drifted too far from its constitutional roots. The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, yet over decades, lawmakers have ceded much of this responsibility to the president. In a recent statement tied to his co-sponsorship of the Trade Review Act of 2025 alongside Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Grassley emphasized this point: “For too long, Congress has delegated its clear authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce to the executive branch.” This bill would require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of imposing new tariffs and mandate Congressional approval within 60 days for them to remain in effect—a mechanism to restore checks and balances.
Grassley’s motivation isn’t just about principle; it’s also pragmatic. As a senator from Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agricultural exports like soybeans, corn, and pork, he’s keenly aware of how trade disruptions ripple through rural economies. By placing Congress in the driver’s seat, he aims to temper unilateral executive actions that could destabilize markets critical to his constituents.
Tariffs as a Negotiating Tool
Despite his push for oversight, Grassley remains supportive of Trump’s broader trade agenda. He views the president’s tariff strategy as a high-stakes bargaining chip—a means to pressure trading partners into reducing their own barriers. As reported by AgWeb, Grassley stated, “I still support Trump because I think his heart’s in the right place to correct some imbalances in trade.” He hopes that by threatening or imposing steep tariffs, Trump can force countries like China, Canada, and the European Union to the negotiating table, ultimately securing deals that lower tariffs on U.S. goods, particularly agricultural exports.
This aligns with Trump’s stated goal of addressing trade deficits and “leveling the playing field.” Grassley sees potential in this approach: if successful, it could open markets for American farmers, who have faced retaliatory tariffs in past trade disputes, such as those during Trump’s first term when China targeted U.S. soybeans. The senator envisions a scenario where the mere threat of sustained tariffs compels trading partners to offer concessions, reducing global trade barriers without prolonged economic pain.
The Best Resolution
For Grassley, the ideal outcome is a negotiated reduction in tariffs worldwide, facilitated by Trump’s pressure but moderated by Congressional input. The Trade Review Act would ensure that any tariffs imposed are temporary unless lawmakers—closer to the pulse of their districts—approve them. This would prevent rash, unchecked policies while allowing the U.S. to extract trade concessions. The best resolution, then, would see nations like China rollback retaliatory duties on U.S. farm goods, the EU lower barriers on American pork and beef, and Canada ease restrictions—all while Congress retains veto power to halt tariffs that overstep or misfire. This balanced approach could stabilize markets, boost exports, and reassure farmers that their livelihoods aren’t pawns in an executive gamble.
Impact on the Agricultural Community
Iowa’s farmers, and the broader agricultural sector, stand at the heart of Grassley’s calculus. Agriculture relies heavily on export markets—about 20% of U.S. farm production is shipped overseas, according to the USDA. Tariffs, whether imposed by the U.S. or in retaliation by trading partners, can choke this lifeline. When Trump imposed steel and aluminum tariffs in 2018, China hit back with duties on soybeans, slashing Iowa’s exports and forcing farmers to lean on federal aid. Grassley’s current stance reflects a lesson from that era: unchecked executive power can leave farmers vulnerable.
If Trump’s tariffs succeed as a negotiating tool, the payoff could be significant—expanded market access and higher commodity prices. But the agricultural community is jittery. A prolonged trade war could flood global markets with cheaper alternatives (e.g., Brazilian soybeans), depress U.S. prices, and erode competitiveness. Grassley’s bill aims to mitigate this by giving Congress a say, but its passage is uncertain, with Trump threatening a veto and GOP leadership hesitant to defy him.
What Happens if the Plan Backfires?
This uncertainty fuels farmers’ concerns—and for good reason. If Trump’s tariffs fail to yield concessions and instead ignite a global trade war, the fallout could be severe. Retaliatory tariffs could lock U.S. goods out of key markets, piling inventory onto an already volatile domestic market. Prices for crops and livestock could plummet, squeezing profit margins already thinned by rising input costs like fuel and fertilizer. Smaller farms, less able to weather losses, might fold, accelerating consolidation in an industry where family operations are already under pressure.
Worse still, if Congress can’t override a Trump veto of the Trade Review Act—or if GOP leaders like Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson block its progress—farmers could be left exposed to executive whims. “That’s what has a lot of farmers concerned,” notes one Iowa grower quoted by AgWeb, reflecting a broader fear that the plan could backfire without a legislative safety net. The stock market’s recent sell-off, triggered by Trump’s tariff announcements, only heightens this anxiety, signaling economic turbulence that could hit rural America hard.
Conclusion
Senator Grassley’s dual stance—backing Trump’s intent while demanding Congressional control—embodies a tightrope walk between principle and pragmatism. He sees tariffs as a potential lever to pry open markets for farmers, but only if wielded with restraint and oversight. The agricultural community, wary of being collateral damage, watches closely. The best case—a negotiated tariff rollback—could be a boon, but the specter of a backfire looms large, threatening livelihoods and testing Grassley’s faith in this high-risk strategy. As the Trade Review Act faces an uphill battle, the senator’s vision hangs in the balance, with Iowa’s fields as the proving ground.
Source: AgWeb, “Grassley: I Still Support Trump, Congress Should Lead on Trade, Tariffs,” April 2025.